After seeing ABC’s OF DEATH 2 at Fantastic Fest (you can read my review of the film HERE), I was able to sit down with the director of one of my favorite shorts in the anthology – Larry Fessenden. His short “N is for Nexus” is a break-neck countdown through the streets of New York as Halloween night approaches. A couple preparing their Frankenstein costumes for a party sets in motion a series of events that intersect and slowly affect one another, leading to a devastating conclusion. Fessenden is practically a legend in the indie horror genre. He has worked as an actor, cinematographer, writer and director since the later 70’s and has created a named for himself with such feature films like HABIT, WENDIGO, and THE LAST WINTER, while also appearing in films like I SELL THE DEAD, STAKE LAND, and JUG FACE. I was lucky enough to sit down with Fessenden not once but twice. Long story short, I accidentally deleted the first interview but was able to sit down for a second one during Fantastic Fest – it seems apropos considering his short also deals with actions and consequences. I’m grateful that his schedule was able to accommodate me again because it ended up being one of the best discussions I’ve had with a director. Not only did we dig into his exciting entry to ABC’s 2, but we discussed a wide variety of topics including his filmmaking process, the current state of horror, and the iconography of Frankenstein.
The interview below does contain some MINOR spoilers to his short film. If you don’t want to have anything ruined for you, go check out ABC’S OF DEATH 2 on VOD right now and then come back to read what Fessenden has to say it.
Was this the first idea you had when you were approached to do a short for ABC’s OF DEATH 2? A film that builds to Halloween night.
All the components I wanted to do was to shoot in the streets of my beloved city of New York at Halloween. I had the idea that all the extras would be handpicked from real people on the street and I was going to craft all the monster cameos that are seen in the film. Ultimately I wanted to tell the story of all these tricks of timing that lead to a terrible end. That’s why the short is called “Nexus.” If I got the letter C it would have been “Convergence.” I was pretty determined to tell this story of fate and circumstance. If your girlfriend tells you to “hurry up,” than you get somewhere sooner than you planned or you forget something and you get there later than you planned. I just loved the idea and seemed appropriate for a quick 3-minute piece.
So you didn’t shoot down any other ideas prior to this one?
No. I’m not one of these people overflowing with stories, so if I come up with one I pretty much nurture it till I can get it out of my system. It also fed into the idea that I could play with editing rhythms and I could have these three or four different stories starting to build. I love this kind of editing and you don’t get to do this with features. With a feature you tend to do longer takes and play things out more slowly, and so in this case you can do these fast cuts with each accompanied by a sound effect so you get this percussive experience.
That’s one of the refreshing things for me, compared to the other shorts, you do have this frenzied rapid-pace style, except for the opening shot. Did you edit the entire thing yourself or did you work with someone on that?
No. One of the pleasures of this thing for many of the filmmakers present in this feature is that you bring in all your pals to do favors and you get this great production value and it becomes this collaboration. I did the opposite. There were no friends. I did everything. One of the difficult things of being a film artist is that you’re always asking for favors. Money, time, extras, locations. You’re always asking for something. This time I was going to use the equipment that I own and go out with one or two people and do it myself. So I was the sole editor. Another quirk of my work is that I don’t screen my work for people. That the mission of the artist is to find acutely as possible what is inside and what it is that works. Then you screen it and Marc Walcow who was my producer for ABC’s and Ant (Timpson) and Tim (League) finally did see it and they had small notes but mainly encouragement. So I felt protected and that they understood the idea I was trying to convey on-screen.
I loved that you showed Halloween from a different angle. So often you see it set in rural America or in these small town or suburban areas like Haddonfield (in the film HALLOWEEN) or recently in the TRICK ‘R TREAT film. You showed Halloween in the big city with the cars driving about, the crowded sidewalks, the car horns, the stoplights – all of these things play a part into the story and you don’t often see that when you have a film set during Halloween.
This was my experience growing up in the city during Halloween. It’s a wonderful holiday in New York. There’s this great parade. It’s colorful and energetic and in the past 10 years it has always been this great event. There’s this very specific things that happen in East Village in New York. So I wanted to capture that. Actually a lot of the footage is from drive-bys that I did on Halloween. To see the real people during their routine. I just love the holiday. I did include a couple of odd nods to my earlier film HABIT. The cab driver in this is a cabbie now and he was a character in HABIT. It was fun to bring him out. And HABIT itself was shot as one sequence on Halloween. We shot on Halloween. So I wanted to pay tribute to that idea of “stealing real-life.” There’s this great film called MEDIUM COOL where they filmed during a riot in the 60’s. It’s traditional filmmaking where you are using a location and letting it speak to you.
The Frankenstein mask that becomes a central element to the story, did you make that yourself?
Of course!
(laughter)
That was why I made the movie. So we made it around Halloween and I always allow myself around that time to watch some of the old black and white movies to celebrate the stuff I love like the Jack Pierce make-up. Hopefully there’s no lawsuits but my make-up is clearly derived from that.
(laughter)
I just had fun making my own and making the costumes. I made the boots with a cobbler. Talk about the budget… that’s where the budget went.
Even the suit coat…
Oh yeah, it had to be smaller.
You have that great shot where you show him putting it on and it’s clearly shorter.
I really did all this to fetishize everything that forms this iconic imagery. It is one of the most iconic images of 20th century art. Maybe there’s the soup can and Frankenstein’s monster but I can’t think of anything else. I really wanted to tribute that. I also wanted to include a nod to The Bride. At the beginning of the film I really wanted the actress Lauren Molina to hit that pose.
The Elsa Lanchester…
Where Elsa rejects Boris and it’s a ¾ angle and she screams, “AHHH!”
Photo source: Crave Online
I love that you include her at the end in this long wide shot that pans back. Throughout the film you have these quick close-ups but you include this kind of nod to the classic and frightened Bride also at the end.
We book ended the film with her. The first thing is that we pull out from her mouth screaming into the phone and than in the end we go back into the mouth, which is also a tribute to THE TENANT by Polanski. It’s one of my favorites. The film ends with it being kind of a shit-show and he yells, “AHHH! I can’t take it!” and the camera goes into his mouth. So on the one hand we have that wide shot that contextualizes it. If you actually freeze-frame it you can see there’s a giant crowd that’s gathered and that’s just New York. Everyone gathered and watched us do our thing. We only had a precious amount of time for us to block off that street. To get that wide view I basically put an old tripod on a car and had this crazy jib arm that I found in my storage room and put the camera on it. It was fun. Sometimes we would mount the camera to a bike and I would just pedal around myself.
You seem to embrace the DIY spirit.
You think of film… (pause) Look, it’s a business its all of those things we know, but what if your artform is making movies. Connecting one image to another and selecting the lens, the choice of a wide shot or not. Those are the choices you make. Never mind the money and who’s in your movie. What I love to do because of ABC’s OF DEATH 2 is to present you the art of film. You don’t have to worry about money or any other agenda. Its all about what are the images to tell this story, and in this case it was relatively intricate. So you go out and get the moving shot of the yellow light to cut into this, which will be about 45 frames and then show this. I deliberately didn’t hire a DP (director of photography) even though it would have made it look better, but I wanted to experience the art of film. It’s so rare now. It’s hugely stressful to deal with all the paperwork and the unions and all the equipment.
It’s an interesting time period we’re in because you have the technology to make a movie on your iPhone or on a GoPro so you have people that have the opportunity to finally be able to bring their ideas to life. At the same time you have so many films being made. It’s a fine line. It’s great to have so many great ideas and films out there but it’s hard to stay ahead of the pack and to stand out.
It’s the democratization of the art form. Which is cool. We’ve all been yearning for that and we’ve celebrated it when it popped up. Like when they made DAWN OF THE DEAD. We were all like, “isn’t it cool that they made that outside of the system.” Same with TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE or even SAW. But it’s also true that you say, “Jeez Louis. There’s so much content.” And not all of it is crap.
The amount of films made in 1985 compared to know…
(laughter)
It’s insane. As you say, all good, but the puzzle becomes how you monetize it. Because if there’s that much content than that means no one has to pay for it. So we become “Spotified” and think that we don’t have to pay for anything. So we watch it and digest it. It’s a weird time and it’s fine. You can either complain about it or just say, “this is where we are.” It’s hard to make sense of it all but more it’s hard to make a living as a filmmaker unitl you get to the upper echelon. Like the Paul Thomas Anderson’s or the James Wan’s. How many horror auteurs can we speak of working now?
Obviously you’re a fan of the FRANKENSTEIN film(s). Talk to me about the films and their impact on you. What do you take from them?
First of all, it’s an amazing archetype. One thing I do love about horror is that it’s a cautionary tale, and I’m not talking about FRIDAY THE 13th where if you have sex you will get murdered. That’s not of interest. What I do feel strongly about is the Frankenstein mythology that comes from the book which is human hubris possibly might bite us in the ass. As you may know the book is subtitled “The Modern Prometheus” who is the Greek god who stole fire from the gods and then got eaten by vultures for the rest of time. I just love the story and it has not been told well. It’s fascinating but it has not been told very well since the Karloff 1931 film. I love the first one. A lot of people cherish the second but I found it too campy and I didn’t like the monster talking. It’s still a beautiful film and worth revisiting. I never fetishized it like the first one, which is almost a perfect film. There’s a coupe of slips into goofiness with the father figure but that’s hardly the point. The make-up is just an amazing feat. The third one has great charm.
The SON OF FRANKENSTEIN is fantastic.
Oddly enough, (Bela) Lugosi, who refused to play the monster because there was too much makeup and thought he wouldn’t be celebrated – he obviously regretted that the rest of his life – would be in the third one as a hunchback.
And he delivers a standout performance. He’s the real “monster” in it.
You’re right. He is the monster. And that’s the one, in a way more than the others, where he has these self-reflexive moments like when he looks in the mirror going, “NO! NO!” Everything about it is fascinating. Karloff is a little heavier so the make-up changes subtly. They took away his power of speech because they realized that was the wrong direction. Then you have the archetype of guy in the town with the wooden arm.
Which you see now with all the bumbling idiot cops played on-screen.
It’s got a great sense of humor without being campy. You then have the weird thing with the child at the end. You have the monster wearing a new outfit.
They even push the German expressionist visuals even further with the lab and some of the architectural details.
It was also the first time you get that Universal Pictures cliché where you get this weird European in huge quotations village where there’s cars and horses with buggies and gypsies. It’s this weird conceit that came from Universal Pictures. Then you have the subsequent movies like GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN and HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN and FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLFMAN and they all are really interesting. They spend a lot of time with Larry Talbot (the wolfman) and his anguish. I think they are all better films than people think because now obviously Frankenstein became Herman Munster and then showed up on a cereal box and this watered down thing. To go back though, there aren’t that many great Frankenstein films. They all have something. Even the Hammer films are fun. There’s a TV movie I love called FRANKENSTEIN: THE TRUE STORY with Michael Sarrazin where he plays a very beautiful Frankenstein monster but it kind of falls apart. It is my ambition to make another real Frankenstein film one day, but in the meantime, I have these short films which I have enjoyed.
You actually acted in one of my favorite horror films of last year JUG FACE. I actually reached to the director on Twitter after seeing it and told him how much I appreciated his film. Your performance in that film is great.
Very cool. Chad is a really genuine filmmaker. I found the experience to be exactly what you wanted when working in horror. He’s working in a genre where you have scares and oddness, but there’s clearly something very personal going on in that film. It was well researched where you have these jug faces in traditional Southern life where you make a jug out of clay with a face on it. This is why horror can be so exciting. He’s taking something so odd and peculiar and creating a world that it very unique. He’s got as story to tell but you also have a monster and a giant pit filled with blood so you also have your horror tropes. But in there you do have a very personal film and that’s where horror can flourish. You don’t always get that from the main street.
What were some of your favorites in ABC’s OF DEATH 2 or some that really stood out to you?
I’m always hesitant to celebrate one thing because it could just be a trick of the moment but I do have to say I thought this was an amazing collection with a lot of ambition and a lot of talent. It’s a great way to sample what these guys and gals are able to do. I did like the last one (Z is for Zygote). I thought that was just outstanding. I thought “B is for Badger” early on was great fun. So it’s cool. I’m really serious with my take on horror but that’s an example of really fun and sort of biting satire with a buffoon who just isn’t paying attention. It’s all done in single-take too. There’s a lot of great techniques going on in the film. Nicely edited together pieces. Plus there’s some great special effects throughout.
So what’s next for you? Do you have anything lined-up?
Well, my Frankenstein film of course.
(laughs)
Is that the next project?
I… (pauses) have something. I’m trying to raise some money. It’s very hard. My brand of horror is not immediately pitchable. So everything has to be from my passion for the project. Now I’m putting that out there and trying to get some dough to make the movie. Meanwhile, I produce and dabble with all sorts of other stuff.
I want to thank Larry Fessenden for his time and being so candid with me about his filmmaking process and his short in ABC’S OF DEATH 2. The horror anthology film is now available on VOD and will be hitting select theaters starting on October 31st.
